TV Critics Vs. TV Viewers? Not Quite… – An Analysis

With the 2011 leg of the 2010-2011 TV season in full swing, I’ve decided to take a look at the relationship between TV critics and TV viewers. Are the two factions still thick as thieves or are they becoming TV land’s version of water and oil?

Lone Star and Terriers, two of the most highly praised and championed shows at the start of the season, were met with abysmal ratings and, in Lone Star‘s case, left a sour taste in some viewers mouths by not delivering the goods promised by seasoned critics. Fans felt that Terriers’ downfall was mostly due to bad advertising and a complicated angle to sell, which in some areas could be a feasible argument, but was debunked by the network. However, you would think that with all the positive word of mouth from TV’s top critics (and rabid fans) that Terriers would’ve found its audience and prevented itself from being one of the growing casualties of the current TV season. Could it be that people tuned in and didn’t see what all the fuss was about and tuned right back out?

If you look at some of the top rated shows on television, you would be hard pressed to find more than five of the top critical darlings in attendance on the list. So one has to ask, does the mass audience even listen to critics anymore? To answer this question, I asked several TV critics and bloggers, as well as some avid TV viewers, for their take on what has been a dismal TV season so far in terms of new material. Plus, if there is really any “blame” to be thrown around because of it.

What Do ‘We’ Really, Really Want?

Mad Men or Jersey Shore? The Good Wife or The Real Housewives of New Jersey? While choosing between those two choices might be as easy as a VH1 Celebreality contestant, it’s the basic category of “smart” drama versus “mindless” entertainment that is at stake here. If you looked at the same choices, some people might be shocked to know that “mindless” entertainment tends to win out in terms of popularity and ratings (except for The Good Wife, which trumps the other choices in that category).

Another way to look at the choices presented? The “smart” dramas are pretty serialized, while the exploits of Snooki and gang doesn’t require too much back story, allowing people to tune in any time without missing much. This sentiment is shared with most of the critics I interviewed.

“Honestly, I think viewers are looking for something to either love and fight for, or something that allows them to turn off their brain and escape,” Damian Holbrook of TV Guide surmises. “Are they more involved? Who knows? But I do think that the average viewer wants to be entertained…”

Tina Charles, also of TV Guide and co-editor of TVGoodness, agrees with Holbrook, “I feel that many viewers want an escape. They don’t have time to get hooked on something that’s going to require close attention week after week. I totally get it. Their lives are busy.”

While he agrees with both Holbrook and Charles on viewers not wanting to invest in serialized TV, Adam Wright of TVDoneWright.com is “frustrated” with some of the viewers’alternative choices. “Why do 6 million [viewers] tune into Jersey Shore every week? Why are Fringe and Community barely surviving in the ratings? …These are the questions that keep me up at night.”

When I asked some viewers if they watched either Terriers or Lone Star, they either tuned in and tuned back out or just got tired of where the shows were going and eventually didn’t return for another outing. “I watched one episode and had the rest on my DVR,’Trish Gazall, an Avid TV viewer, revealed about her experience with Terriers. ‘I wasn’t hooked after the first episode but must confess I was doing other things while watching it.”

“I checked out halfway through the pilot at the time,” Alex Chatman said of Terriers. However, he gave Lone Star a “7” for being controversial ala Big Love, while inferring Terriers wasn’t as buzzworthy as other FX shows like Justified or Sons of Anarchy.

The divide between critic and viewer doesn’t stop at just recently canceled shows. The reaction to the recent People’s Choice Awards spoke volumes when CBS’s Sh*t My Dad Says! won Best New Comedy series, sending television critics into a state of shock and horror. The freshman comedy series, which stars William Shatner, has not managed to capture any love from most critics, but has been a moderate hit for the Eye network. Another freshman comedy, NBC’s Outsourced, is considered a hit with the audience, despite getting a shellacking by the critics at the start of the season for being one of the most offensive shows on TV. Some even declared the show wouldn’t make it by midseason. However, NBC picked it up for a full season as did CBS with Sh*t My Dad Says, which again threw most critics for a loop.

With the blatant disagreement between TV critics and TV viewers over the two freshman comedies, does a critic’s review still hold water with TV viewers? Yes… and no.

According to Holbrook, while some people still weigh in critiques when viewing a show, the overall audience is a different story.

‘Just look at the highly rated crap still on and you have the answer to that,’Holbrook declared.

Gazall considers a critic’s review a time saver for the average TV viewer when trying out a slew of new shows. ‘With so little time with kids, work, and school, they don’t have a lot of time to weed through all of the shows.’

So, while a critic’s opinion is still valid to some TV viewers in most cases, what about critical hype? Is it a good or bad trait of critics?

Over-hyped? Or Under-whelmed?

May is like Christmas Day to most TV fans/critics/bloggers alike with networks showing off their new acquisitions to the hungry masses of TV critic/bloggers/and fans, who in turn crank up the hype machine for the new series. Most of the lauding builds after most critics have the opportunity to view TV pilots slotted to premiere in the fall. During the next few months, the excitement for a show builds to the point of no return through the word of mouth of the critics and bloggers.

Again, let’s look at Lone Star, which was hailed the white horse of the TV season with its unorthodox premise and appealing lead James Wolk. In her article titled ‘Did TV Critics Kill Lone Star,’Tiffany Vogt expressed that in terms of Lone Star‘s inability to capture viewers, critical over-hype in hyper-drive was the culprit behind the show’s demise.

‘The critics are the ones privy to advance screenings of television pilots and they use the power of the pen to hype television shows to the point that viewers either are frothing at the bit to see the show, and then subject to massive disappointment because the show failed to live up to the hype, or viewers are sick of hearing about the show even before it airs. In Lone Star‘s case, there were many factors going against it.’

Vogt raises a pretty interesting question when it comes to the role of the television critic in trying to sell a show. When Lone Star and Terriers were canceled, the critics took to social media outlets to vent their frustration with the viewing audience for not tuning in or bemoan the injustice that is the Neilsen Ratings system, which many people (critics and fans alike) still feel is highly inaccurate and outdated, especially in the age of the DVR and Internet. In either case, the post-mortem campaign posts/articles didn’t sit well with some viewers, who made their voices crystal in the message boards and comment sections about their dislike for the shows and why they chose to tune out or not even bother trying.

So, to ask Ms. Voigt’s question again, did TV critics kill Lone Star and, later, Terriers with hype overkill?

I posed this question to the critics and viewers interviewed for this article before I read Ms. Vogt’s piece and got some interesting feedback.

TVDoneWright’s Adam Wright gave a resounding ‘No!’

‘I refuse to believe that,’Wright proclaimed. ‘To that logic, that means a critic’s bad review could also kill a show. If that was the case, Outsourced and Sh*t My Dad Says would not have survived past midseason.’

‘Did we over-hype [Lone Star]? Probably,’Tina Charles surmises. ‘…People may have reacted to that. But I think ultimately Lone Star had an uphill battle.’

Viewers Chatman and Gazall felt as if no plea from critics or fans a like will save a show from the chopping block when the time comes.

‘It might be a hindrance on some people, because they will call it ‘˜overrated,’Chatman suggests. ‘Pleas (from critics or viewers) don’t work because viewers minds are likely made up by then.’

Which is basically true to some extent. Terriers, Lone Star, and other recently canceled dramas might’ve had the backing of the most seasoned critics in the field, but they didn’t have a built-in fanbase to strengthen the support. Take for instance Chuck, which has always been a mainstay on plenty of On The Bubble lists since it’s been on air. However, Chuck managed to capture the audience in its first couple of episodes, something Terriers and Lone Star failed to do. So when you look at it that way, if you blame the critics for the over-hyping of a show, then you must include the few rabid fans whose word of mouth didn’t hold water either.

A Common Ground?

While critics and TV viewers don’t see eye to eye in terms of what they consider ‘˜damn good’entertainment, there is one thing most of them agree on without a shadow of the doubt when it comes to the state of TV: the rapid distrust in the ratings system.

‘I still don’t understand the Nielsen system!’Holbrook declared. ‘It’s like something that happens in an alternate world where time stopped in 1957.’

Viewer Steve Keeling agrees, but goes on to say where Nielsen is lacking in the midst of today’s technology. ‘With the popularity of DVRs and online streaming, the system is outdated. I don’t think a select few individuals should tell the country what is popular, and therefore deciding a show’s fate.’

Here’s a breakdown of how the Nielsens work from the companies website:

Nielsen’s TV families represent a cross-section of representative homes throughout the U.S. Their viewing is measured by our TV meters and Local People Meters which capture information on what’s being viewed and when and, in the major U.S. markets, specifically who and how many are watching. Additionally, we collect more than two million paper diaries from across the country each year during ‘sweeps.’

… Using data from set top boxes, Nielsen delivers a constant, real-time stream of information, revealing tuning behavior during programs and commercials. We can tell clients which commercials are being watched and which have the strongest engagement and impact. We even analyze which position in the program or commercial block is most effective for a specific brand.

Does that make it any clearer? Not to Adam Wright, who dubs the Nielsen ratings system as the ‘most frustrating’system known to man.

‘If you think about it, these ratings are essentially a tally of the viewers… who are chosen by Nielsen, meaning it’s a sample of the population,’Wright explains. ‘So if you’re not chosen, it doesn’t matter what you want! Because you’re not being counted.’

Although Nielsens can be an easy target for blame from both critics and viewers a like, there is one thing that we painfully have to take into consideration: Nielsen is actually not the true problem. According to my esteemed colleague Clarissa, network and advertisers basically need to catch up with the times.

“The real reason that Nielson still exists is because of advertising, advertisers and networks,” Clarissa explains. “Networks cannot make ad revenue that’s worth it off online and DVR broadcasts. At this point in time it’s simply not an economically viable business model, not to the degree that traditional commercials are. Until networks and advertisers figure out how to make that system work, you will always have shows live or die by Nielsen. Sure, they take online viewers/revenue and DVR ratings into consideration these days, but those factors aren’t as important. Some networks, like The CW, have found a very good balance and have broken into the online world successfully and really take those types of ratings boosts into consideration, but for most networks it’s just not good business sense yet. One day it may be, but today’s not that day.”

You learn something new everyday.

Whether you like them or not, the current ratings system represents a common ground of sorts between television critics and viewers when it comes to the preservation of a favorite show. Some of those shows still might ignite some debate on which one should be saved, but it’s unity nonetheless.

There are other areas where the two different factions of critics and TV audiences see eye to eye, but I’ve yet to see much unity between the two when it comes Operation: Save (Insert Your Show Here) or to show their complete ire of the existing ratings systems. The one trait they both share is their overwhelming love for TV, whether its quality programming or not. In the end, everybody is entitled to their opinion in matters of what they love to watch on TV, and in that light, there isn’t a right or wrong side/answer/stance when you look at the big picture.

Damian Holbrook states this in the most eloquent manner. “Like everything, TV is subjective. What one viewer likes, another may hate, or not even pay attention to. But it’s there for the experiencing, and as long as it gives us experiences, escapes, and even annoyances, TV will continue.”

True words, my friends. True words.